PRISM: NSA/FBI Mining Internet Data since 2007

[tigerfan482]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22883078

I quote

The US electronic spying chief has said massive surveillance programmes newly revealed by an ex-intelligence worker had disrupted dozens of terror plots.

In a US Senate hearing, National Security Agency (NSA) Director Keith Alexander defended the internet and telephone data snooping programmes.

Unquote

That the director of the NSA admits to snooping on Americans confirms that conspiratorial theories are redundant.

I'm sorry, where in that quote did he say they were targeting Americans? I missed that. In fact, later on in that quoted article:

Intelligence officials have insisted agents do not listen in on Americans' telephone conversations. And they maintain the internet communications surveillance programme, reportedly code-named Prism, targeted only non-Americans located outside of the US.

Sounds to me like what the NSA Director was actually saying was that they used this program to target non-Americans as their responsibilities dictate and they disrupted terrorist plots. It seems the targeting Americans part was added in by your own thought process. Don't feel bad though, a lot of people seem to be doing that.

 

[JayHawk]

Then the CIA and NSA were insane to employ him were his intelligence that lacking - as you have implied.

Didn't say his intelligence was lacking, simply that he embellishes known facts, so what is he adding to his story?

 

[JayHawk]

It seems the targeting Americans part was added in by your own thought process. Don't feel bad though, a lot of people seem to be doing that.

It is catching. Especially with those desperate to find something to gripe about against America.

 

[swerve]

Re: Manning.

Thank you, kallipolis. Why the hell should we take at face value what the government says about these programs when the truth is that it was ordinary people who did more to stop terrorists? When are we going to ell em to go to hell and demand our leaders remember they work for us, not the other way around? It's true the way of the world is spying on the enemy. But when did WE become the enemy? When did it become okay that surrendering freedom to protect it made any kind of common sense? When some say" I have done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear, so why should any other person without guilt"?.... that's the ticket those who love power want to cash in, to institutionalize surveillance to the point no one can be free... to set the stage for control that will be damned near impossible to fight against. Fuck the power elites now who dismiss concerns about the scope and intent of the surveillance potential, we still have time to stop this. This sounds alarmist, but we've been kept in the dark for a long time and the programs only seem to be growing exponentially. When will it be time for skepticism and demand for accountability and respect for individual liberties before the question is moot and no one would dare risk the wrath of the watchers? Orwell may have just been off by a few decades.

THANK YOU for a voice of REASON!!!

I cannot BELIEVE that ANYONE WITH THE ABILITY TO THINK is actually OK with this...

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: Manning.

THANK YOU for a voice of REASON!!!

I cannot BELIEVE that ANYONE WITH THE ABILITY TO THINK is actually OK with this...

OK with what? NSA using American companies to accomplish its mission of finding out what foreigners are doing? I'm totally fine with that.

 

[frankfrank]

^ QFT on the SWERVE and SAUSY posts.

What's the deal with such a massive complex in Utah? DATA, NOWADAYS, is incredibly compact. If only logs are being kept, even for years, wouldn't that all fit on a modern mainframe perhaps the size of a bathroom? ("Is it bigger than a bread box?") The place in Utah is more massive than a large fleet of 53-foot semi trailers. the only reason for something so massive, with today's technology, would be to allow enough storage to keep track of everything...to be used and mined at the pure whim of whoever may be in power at the time.

I brought up Pol Pot, and what could happen if that type of person were to reach power, but in 2012 WE DID have a candidate of that type in the Primaries who actually won some states: Rick Santorum.

 

[tigerfan482]

^ QFT on the SWERVE and SAUSY posts.

What's the deal with such a massive complex in Utah? DATA, NOWADAYS, is incredibly compact. If only logs are being kept, even for years, wouldn't that all fit on a modern mainframe perhaps the size of a bathroom? ("Is it bigger than a bread box?") The place in Utah is more massive than a large fleet of 53-foot semi trailers. the only reason for something so massive, with today's technology, would be to allow enough storage to keep track of everything...to be used and mined at the pure whim of whoever may be in power at the time.

I brought up Pol Pot, and what could happen if that type of person were to reach power, but in 2012 WE DID have a candidate of that type in the Primaries who actually won some states: Rick Santorum.

Do you know anything about high performance computing? Do you know anything about computing in general? What data has become more compact over the years? Do your computers still come with a 40 megabyte hard drive? Do video games still come in 8-bit cartridges? Are you still operating with only 64K of RAM and an 8086 processor? Your argument is incredibly flawed. No one said the NSA doesn't keep data. They have every right and responsibility to monitor, collect, process, etc. foreign communications. You're taking the NSA's entire mission and cramming it down into this incredibly narrow set of facts (more specifically, the fact that in one instance they retain only metadata information in the case of the Verizon warrant.) Yes, they do need a big data facility to store and process the data they need to accomplish their mission - the 99.9% that involves storing and processing data of foreign adversaries and the 0.1% that involves storing metadata log files from Verizon.

 

[opinterph]

Do you know anything about high performance computing? …

Yes, they do need a big data facility to store and process the data they need to accomplish their mission - the 99.9% that involves storing and processing data of foreign adversaries and the 0.1% that involves storing metadata log files from Verizon.

My personal computer can process several billion instructions per second. Back in 2001 CNN reported that one Cray Triton Supercomputer at the NSA supercomputer center could handle 64 billion instructions per second. The new NSA facility in Utah will include the new Titan Supercomputer, which can process 20,000 trillion instructions per second.

 

[Kulindahr]

My personal computer can process several billion instructions per second. Back in 2001 CNN reported that one Cray Triton Supercomputer at the NSA supercomputer center could handle 64 billion instructions per second. The new NSA facility in Utah will include the new Titan Supercomputer, which can process 20,000 trillion instructions per second.

And that's plenty of processing power.

Given today's storage capacity, the entire contents of the Library of Congress can fit in the volume of a dresser drawer. The new facilities will have the space to store every email and phone conversation in the world for a number of years.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, good authority tells us that the response to all this that "I've got nothing to hide" is utter foolishness. The authority I have in mind is quoted in this article:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/0...is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

 

[tigerfan482]

My personal computer can process several billion instructions per second. Back in 2001 CNN reported that one Cray Triton Supercomputer at the NSA supercomputer center could handle 64 billion instructions per second. The new NSA facility in Utah will include the new Titan Supercomputer, which can process 20,000 trillion instructions per second.

And do you know how much processing is required to break encryption? Take the standard 256-bit AES encryption scheme as a basis. Part of the NSA's charter mission is to deal in cryptography. And where do you get the information that the NSA's new facility will contain the Titan Supercomputer?

And that's plenty of processing power.

Given today's storage capacity, the entire contents of the Library of Congress can fit in the volume of a dresser drawer. The new facilities will have the space to store every email and phone conversation in the world for a number of years.

http://removeandreplace.com/2013/03...e-internet-and-generated-online-every-minute/
The world creates an unbelievable amount of data every day. When the NSA's mission is to target the other 94.7% of the world's population and be able to track terrorist attacks and communications (which can span a number of years in planning stages) as well as gather information on other state actors, then they are going to need a large storage and processing facility in order to do these tasks. Also, keep in mind that what is being put out there in that data center is just conjecture. Every article I have read has said something like "experts say there could be up to 1 yottabyte of storage in the new facility" which isn't very definitive and could span from no storage at all up to 1 yottabyte.

BTW, good authority tells us that the response to all this that "I've got nothing to hide" is utter foolishness. The authority I have in mind is quoted in this article:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/0...is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

Again the "I've Got Nothing to Hide" argument is only applicable if the NSA were actually shown to be spying on Americans, which hasn't happened yet.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again the "I've Got Nothing to Hide" argument is only applicable if the NSA were actually shown to be spying on Americans, which hasn't happened yet.

Those who operate in secrecy are far less likely to follow the rules than those who operate in the open. Given that law enforcement which operates in the open in the US blatantly ignores the rules at a whim, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that those at the NSA give a shit at all about the rules.

So when one of their own says we're being spied on, the sensible thing to believe is that he's correct, and that we're being spied on.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm sorry, where in that quote did he say they were targeting Americans? I missed that. In fact, later on in that quoted article:



Sounds to me like what the NSA Director was actually saying was that they used this program to target non-Americans as their responsibilities dictate and they disrupted terrorist plots. It seems the targeting Americans part was added in by your own thought process. Don't feel bad though, a lot of people seem to be doing that.

I presume that you do not spend too much time reading the newspapers or other media outlets on the Internet for the issue is not that the NSA does not snoop on United States citizens rather that it does and that this fact of life is not being disputed. I'll repeat an earlier post that you may be better informed:

If only the huge investments made in hardware and man hours spent monitoring the Internet and telecommunications provided value.

All of the most recent terrorist attempts on the United States have been confronted by civilians without any association to security agencies or the police service.

The 'underpants' bomber who attempted to hijack an aircraft on Christmas Day 2009 was detected by another passenger whose rapid and successful intervention disarmed the terrorist saving the lives of all on board the plane.

The Times Square bomber was identified by local street vendors noticing the strange behaviour of the perpetrator.

Tamerlan's brother Dzokhar evaded capture despite virtual martial law being declared in Boston and a massive man hunt involving swat teams, helicopters and armoured vehicles. The terrorist was arrested because a suspicious man went out to check the tarpaulin of his boat parked in his backyard which a neighbour had reported being loose where he discovered the terrorist hiding telephoning the police to report the injured man's whereabouts.

So much for hideously expensive snooping by the NSA.

 

[kallipolis]

This article is worth the time reading if only to become aware of the NSAs capacity to spy on the citizens of the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/nsa-utah-data-facility

I quote:

William Binney, a mathematician who worked at the NSA for almost 40 years and helped automate its worldwide eavesdropping, said Utah's computers could store data at the rate of 20 terabytes – the equivalent of the Library of Congress – per minute. "Technically it's not that complicated. You just need to work out an indexing scheme to order it."

Binney, who left the agency in 2001 and blew the whistle on its domestic spying, said the centre could absorb and store data for "hundreds of years" and allow agencies such as the FBI to retroactively use the information.

Unquote

 

[JayHawk]

I presume that you do not spend too much time reading the newspapers or other media outlets on the Internet for the issue is not that the NSA does not snoop on United States citizens rather that it does and that this fact of life is not being disputed. I'll repeat an earlier post that you may be better informed:

If only the huge investments made in hardware and man hours spent monitoring the Internet and telecommunications provided value.

All of the most recent terrorist attempts on the United States have been confronted by civilians without any association to security agencies or the police service.

The 'underpants' bomber who attempted to hijack an aircraft on Christmas Day 2009 was detected by another passenger whose rapid and successful intervention disarmed the terrorist saving the lives of all on board the plane.

The Times Square bomber was identified by local street vendors noticing the strange behaviour of the perpetrator.

Tamerlan's brother Dzokhar evaded capture despite virtual martial law being declared in Boston and a massive man hunt involving swat teams, helicopters and armoured vehicles. The terrorist was arrested because a suspicious man went out to check the tarpaulin of his boat parked in his backyard which a neighbour had reported being loose where he discovered the terrorist hiding telephoning the police to report the injured man's whereabouts.

So much for hideously expensive snooping by the NSA.

Go on and tell me about the non-ignorant terrorist who have been stopped. Oh yeah it is classified. Dang it.

What I wonder, and everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, but I wonder why so many foreigners are upset about america purportedly illegally spying on America? When Americans don't care.

 

[kallipolis]

Go on and tell me about the non-ignorant terrorist who have been stopped. Oh yeah it is classified. Dang it.

What I wonder, and everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, but I wonder why so many foreigners are upset about america purportedly illegally spying on America? When Americans don't care.

So much money being spent snooping on Americans and so little to show for it.

Bravo for the man in the street who delivers a better return on authentic patriotism without needing to eavesdrop.

 

[palbert]

Those wishing to leave less of a trail or memory on the internet should review

Stealth: Leaving Less on the Internet
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...the-Internet?p=8934983&viewfull=1#post8934983

which names alternate providers.

 

[tigerfan482]

I presume that you do not spend too much time reading the newspapers or other media outlets on the Internet for the issue is not that the NSA does not snoop on United States citizens rather that it does and that this fact of life is not being disputed. I'll repeat an earlier post that you may be better informed:

If only the huge investments made in hardware and man hours spent monitoring the Internet and telecommunications provided value.

All of the most recent terrorist attempts on the United States have been confronted by civilians without any association to security agencies or the police service.

The 'underpants' bomber who attempted to hijack an aircraft on Christmas Day 2009 was detected by another passenger whose rapid and successful intervention disarmed the terrorist saving the lives of all on board the plane.

The Times Square bomber was identified by local street vendors noticing the strange behaviour of the perpetrator.

Tamerlan's brother Dzokhar evaded capture despite virtual martial law being declared in Boston and a massive man hunt involving swat teams, helicopters and armoured vehicles. The terrorist was arrested because a suspicious man went out to check the tarpaulin of his boat parked in his backyard which a neighbour had reported being loose where he discovered the terrorist hiding telephoning the police to report the injured man's whereabouts.

So much for hideously expensive snooping by the NSA.

And I presume you don't spend too much time looking at facts versus opinion. As I have stated before, there are two sets of facts in front of us in the form of some kind of proof (a partial classified briefing on the PRISM program and a copy of a warrant for Verizon). None of that shows any kind of support for your claim that the American government is "snooping" on American citizens. Everything else you read about snooping on Americans, listening in to every phone call, etc. has had absolutely no proof provided and is all conjecture by people writing these stories. Even Snowden himself provided no proof to substantiate half of the claims he made and easily verifiable things like his yearly salary proved to be greatly exaggerated.

And you have no idea what value intelligence has provided. The details of these programs are classified, and for good reason. These things don't work if you go and announce to the world what you are doing. Thus, the successes of these programs are also not announced. Yes, those plots you mentioned were stopped by various citizens, which is why ONE of the tools the government employs is encouraging people to say something if they see something. This isn't an either/or scenario. The government will use what tools it has available to it to fulfill its mission of providing for the common defense.

This article is worth the time reading if only to become aware of the NSAs capacity to spy on the citizens of the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/nsa-utah-data-facility

I quote:

William Binney, a mathematician who worked at the NSA for almost 40 years and helped automate its worldwide eavesdropping, said Utah's computers could store data at the rate of 20 terabytes – the equivalent of the Library of Congress – per minute. "Technically it's not that complicated. You just need to work out an indexing scheme to order it."

Binney, who left the agency in 2001 and blew the whistle on its domestic spying, said the centre could absorb and store data for "hundreds of years" and allow agencies such as the FBI to retroactively use the information.

Unquote

That article is nothing but a bunch of people casting conjecture on what that facility could possibly be used for. Go back and count the number of times someone used the word "could" or the phrase "it could possibly be". There are very little facts and nothing to support any claims that NSA is spying on Americans. Try again.

 

[palbert]

Further to kallipolis' post #114:

The Hill quotes a Representative that what has been disclosed so far is only "the tip of the iceberg."

The federal surveillance programs revealed in media reports are just "the tip of the iceberg," a House Democrat said Wednesday.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said lawmakers learned "significantly more" about the spy programs at the National Security Agency (NSA) during a briefing on Tuesday with counterterrorism officials.

"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."

http://thehill.com/video/house/3050...llance-programs-in-nsa-briefing#ixzz2WEN2OgVW

 

[Kulindahr]

That article is nothing but a bunch of people casting conjecture on what that facility could possibly be used for. Go back and count the number of times someone used the word "could" or the phrase "it could possibly be". There are very little facts and nothing to support any claims that NSA is spying on Americans. Try again.

You're playing language games. "Could", used by such a person in such a context, means "is capable of". The way it's used indicates the belief that that's exactly what is being done.

And since then the capacity has only expanded.

On top of that, we know that under G W Bush the government was spying on Americans. In every other aspect, Obama has doubled down on Bush intrusiveness -- so to believe that in this one area Obama is uniquely clean is irrational.